How Plants Drove First Animals Onto Land

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/oxygen-and-evolution/

re: biology as geology clue

Hey Brandon,

I was beginning to wonder when I would hear from you again—glad you wrote something, even if it was just a link. :)

Cute little bryozoans... Don’t know what the article had to do with evolution, but it does seem to give at least indirect evidence that global warming isn’t manmade.  If the ice sheet collapsed once before, presumably due to a warmer climate, one can hardly blame that earlier warming spell on mankind and industrialization—something else had to have caused it.  A variation of that something could have caused the recent warming trend (which apparently has reversed itself in the past decade).

Susan

Fwd: biology as geology clue

An interesting article.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben 
Date: Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:14 PM
Subject: biology as geology clue
To: Brandon 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/antarctic-passage/

Foundations

Hey Brandon,

Now that we’ve had a good bit of discussion related to science in general, and evolution in particular, it might be good to go back to the logical framework on which science is based.  Currently, people are drawn not only to evolutionary theory, but to other major scientific topics as well—such as global warming/cooling, energy production, advances in medicine, and effects of nature/nurture on human development, for starters.

When you and your colleagues have disagreements when working on math, how do you handle it?  I would assume that you each try to defend your viewpoint through the use of facts and sound logic.  Somehow I can’t see a good mathematician saying, “I’m right because you are ignorant.”  Or, “I’m right because my prof/colleagues/most mathematicians agree with me”  For example, if someone finds fault with the way you did a specific problem, I’d think that you’d respond by rechecking the problem and asking yourself a few questions, such as, “Does each step  of my proof follow logically from the other, starting with basic axioms?”,  “Did I leave out a step?”, “Did I use the correct figures?”,  “The correct constant?”,  “The correct formulas?”, “Did he think of something that I missed?”.  You might be totally correct, but on the other hand, you might indeed have made a mistake.  If you don’t go through the process of thinking through what the other person said, you lose a chance to learn.

The same sorts of questions apply to any area of scientific inquiry, both historical and empirical.  Take manmade global warming, supposedly due to CO2 in the atmosphere.  One might simply accept that it is occurring and is manmade, because it is “the scientific consensus”.  On the other hand, when those who disagree speak up, one might consider their perspectives and be willing to ask questions that might help come closer to the truth.  A good scientist would ask questions:  What, besides mankind’s actions, are other possible factors in global warming? How much do we know about all these factors? How well have all these factors been accounted for in the models used when studying global warming?  Are these models accurate when plugging in known info from past years?  Have there been times in the past when global warming occurred in the absence of industrialization?  What studies indicate (or do not indicate) global warming?  How well do the data in these studies represent the actual temperatures of an area, or of the whole earth?  What biases might I have that might affect my interpretation of data? (As a dissenter on manmade global warming, I’d have to ask the same questions.  I certainly don’t want to be guilty of accepting a particular idea simply because a certain author/learned figure said so, or just because I want it to be so.)  While I’m not an expert in global warming, I can ask questions, evaluate information, and determine how well various studies follow accepted scientific method and whether their conclusions fit with known facts.  Actually, one may address any sort of topic in this sort of rational, logical manner, asking questions, building on previous knowledge, and looking for possible blind spots and mistakes.  This is what I’ve been trying to do in our discussion of evolution.  Keep in mind that I’m not trying to “win” this discussion, but simply to get to the truth.  We each have our own ideas about what is true, and in the course of our conversation, I’m expecting that we’ll both benefit by gaining a clearer understanding of the actual truth.

Something is bugging me here.  I’m confused. You’d like me to believe that Darwinian evolution is true and science based, yet you’ve given me little in the way of scientific information to support it.  You seem to rely heavily on Richard Dawkins’ writings, which often ignore evidence that does not support his claims.  You practically tell me that I should believe in Darwinian evolution because the mainstream scientific media assumes it is true—at least that’s the message I got from your words—just how scientific is that?  I try to point out some specific scientific shortcomings of Darwinian evolution—the problem of handedness, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), evidence for young earth,  evidence against junk DNA, and so on—and you respond, not by presenting a sound logic and scientific evidence to refute what I say, but by evasions—book is too boring, not interested in answering, consensus is on your side, my evidence no good, and so on—very surprising in light of your intelligence and use of logic in your study of math.  The articles you’ve sent me give great examples of adaptation, but do not address the important questions I’ve asked.   If handedness can’t occur in natural conditions, that is strong evidence against the possibility of Darwinian evolution.  If entropy can’t be overcome, Darwinian evolution couldn’t have occurred.  If the earth is thousands, or even millions of years old, instead of the billions needed for evolution, evolution couldn’t have occurred.  If specified complexity never happens on its own (who or what would do the specifying?) under natural conditions, evolution couldn’t have occurred.  If junk DNA doesn’t exist, it couldn’t have been a building block for Darwinian evolution.   Are you having trouble finding research to support your viewpoint?  (I understand that when you’re not on break, you’re very busy with school stuff, so that you probably don’t have a lot of time to devote to this conversation.  On the other hand, lack of time is not a defense for your position.)

Even if it’s theoretically possible for handedness and specified complexity to occur under natural conditions, what would be the chances of that actually happening?  From what I’ve read, it would be so infinitesimally small as to be practically impossible.  Would you then ask me to believe, “on faith”, that it  occurred?  On what basis would you ask that?  It seems to me that it would take as much faith, if not more, to believe that something occurred in spite of the odds against it and (what I consider to be) much scientific evidence to the contrary, as to believe that a higher intelligence created the universe and everything in it, specifying the design seen throughout nature.  

Your belief in Darwinian evolution appears to be very strongly held—on what are you basing that belief?  Primarily on Dawkins’ writings?  On other sources?  Belief in Darwinian evolution has not only scientific aspects, but also philosophical and theological aspects—which of these has played the strongest role in shaping your thinking about Darwinian evolution?  How consistent is your belief system across all these aspects—scientific, philosophical, and theological?  

I still think we’re looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions, so it would help me a lot if you could articulate the logical/rational basis for why you believe the way you do.  Rather than making assumptions, I want to understand your thinking.  The more we understand about each other’s thinking, the less likely we are to talk past or misunderstand each other.

Also, Jon says that orbits don't degrade unless there's some drag, and he claims there is none with the earth.

Wouldn’t the sun’s gravity tend to pull the earth toward it and thus slow the earth down?

Take care,

Susan

Re: newly discovered species

Some very fascinating creatures!! But what does this have to do with our
discussion? They're newly discovered, not newly evolved.

Susan

Fwd: newly discovered species

Awesome.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Winnick <>
Date: Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Subject: newly discovered species
To: Brandon Meredith <>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38347897/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Re: Dawkins, bacteria, Tibetans, fish, etc.

Hey Brandon,

I ask questions because I want to know, not to be difficult.  I’m not trying to miss the point, and I’m sad that you seem to think that.  Although I don’t think you mean to send that message, it sometimes seems as if you’re trying to avoid answering my questions by saying the book is boring, the author isn’t good enough, my questions don’t interest you, I should accept evolution because everyone else does, and so on.  Even if the book is boring and the author doesn’t have the ‘right’ title with his name, those things don’t have anything to do with whether the author’s ideas are right or wrong.  My questions may not interest you, but they are important to me.  If I’m to be persuaded that Darwinian evolution is true, I need answers that make scientific sense.

My next point is that IN his book, he claims that positive genetic changes are nearly impossible and just don't happen in nature. This claim is falsified by the bacteria test that we discussed. I was NOT trying to prove evolution with one test.

If you had finished the book, you would have found that what he said was that ‘positive’ mutations are very rare and generally come at a price.  Either genetic information (DNA coding) is lost, or there are accompanying negative changes.  (In any given organism, there are always going to be many more negative mutations than positive ones, so even if a positive change occurs, it isn’t the only thing passed to the next generation—many more negative ones may also be passed along.)  For example, an organism may become more heat tolerant, but at the same time lose disease resistance.  Although it wasn’t apparent from the bacteria study, it may very well be that while the bacteria gained the ability to metabolize a different kind of material, it also lost the ability to do something else—we don’t know one way or the other.  The other point I was trying to make about the bacteria is the statistical improbability of mutations driving evolution in light of the fact that it took tens of thousands of generations just to get one positive change.  How many generations would it take for bacteria to become non-bacteria, something more complex?  When I think about the complexity of a single cell—the mitochondria, the semi-permeable cell wall, and so on—the sheer number of DNA codons needed to direct cell function and reproduction is overwhelming.  At one positive change per 30,000-40,000 generations, how many generations would it have taken to develop even the complex function of a single-celled organism, much less the complex function of higher organisms such as mammals and people?  After all, most higher organisms have a much longer life cycle than do bacteria.

So one could assume that a lot of evolution is happening at this moment with bacteria.

One may assume that a lot of adaptation is happening with bacteria.  As far as I know, no one has ever observed bacteria evolving into something else, a more complex non-bacterial organism, even after watching many thousands of generations.

The article ASSUMES evolution is true and ASSUMES it's readers agree with that. That's how lonely you are out there Susan. Mainstream articles just aren't written with you in mind.

This is what bugs me. Just assuming something is true doesn’t make it true. I want to know the logical foundation for belief in Darwinian evolution.  I don’t care what everyone else thinks.  I want to know what is right and true, regardless of whether anyone else believes it or not.  An old saying goes something like this: “Right is right, even if everyone is against it.  Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.”  If Darwinian evolution is true, it must have a logical foundation and must provide a sound explanation for the data observed.  I cannot accept current consensus simply because it’s the consensus—that would be asking me to accept it on blind faith rather than on sound logic and good science.  

Looked up sea water on wikipedia—article wasn’t very helpful—a statement backed up by vague theories.  The evaporite deposits mentioned in

this quote occur in bodies of water such as the Dead Sea where evaporation exceeds input, not in the oceans at large.    

Ocean salinity has been stable for billions of years, most likely as a consequence of a chemical/tectonic system which removes as much salt as is deposited; for instance, sodium and chloride sinks include evaporite deposits... One theory is that plate tectonics forces salt under the continental land masses...

A scientific study I found concluded that known Na removal processes account for only about 30% of NA going into the oceans, suggesting that Na concentration is increasing over time.  According to this study, the maximum age of the earth would be around 62 million years, not the billions of years needed for Darwinian evolution to occur.

All for now. :)

Susan